Re: [PATCH 01/12] mm/huge_memory: zap deposited page tables after an RCU grace period

["Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 04:28:48PM +0100, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 03:41:17PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 11:24:08AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 03:12:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > >
> > > > It won't be costly at the time of the calls obviously as its deferred. Maybe
> > > > increase some time spent in softirq but again is 512x that big of a deal?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how you'd both defer the free and somehow utilise mmu_gather here
> > > > either really, certainly not without it becoming extremely messy.
> > >
> > > The less costly version is to thread the page to be freed onto the
> > > mmu_gather through a linked list in the struct page memory. This is
> > > super cheap since it is just a singly linked list operation.
> > >
> > > Then when the mmu_gather is flushed it does a single call_rcu using
> > > the rcu head of the struct page of the head of the list. The callback
> > > clears the entire linked list of pages.
> > >
> > > Since you have to tlb flush anyhow, it makes sense to always use the
> > > mmu_gather. For example the design I ended up with for iommupt
> > > accumulates all the invalidations and all the free-able memory into a
> > > gather then invalidates and frees.
> > >
> > > This allows maximizing the tlbi efficiency too. You can't do call_srcu
> > > until you flush the tlb and if you call once per table then you are
> > > also tlb flushing once per table too.
> > >
> > > So if the kernel really does want to clear out 512 leaf tables the
> > > optimal implementation is one range tlbi for 512 entries followed by
> > > one call_rcu to free the memory. Hence the gather..
> >
> > I think there's some confusion here.
> >
> > This isn't the path in which a page table is being freed, the _deposited_
> > table is zapped, in zap_deposited_table().
> >
> > That is, the page table kept in reserve for THP split, that is not
> > currently mapped.
> >
> > It amounts to a __free_pages() call.
> >
> > The TLB operations are in e.g. zap_huge_pmd() etc. and nobody has
> > complained about inefficiencies there.
> >
> > So, unless I'm missing something here, TLB flushes play no role in this
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > The issue Kiryl raised was that instead of immediately freeing page tables,
> > they are now batched up individually by call_rcu().
> >
> > I personally find it difficult to imagine the numbers here would be
> > problematic or certainly cause anything observable beyond what is
> > observable now.
> >
> > So I'm going to have to say, unless it can be clearly demonstrated this is
> > problematic, I don't think there's any reason to add additional complexity
> > here.
>
> It would be nice to measure munmap() overhead here.
>
> I am worried about hitting DEFAULT_MAX_RCU_BLIMIT and trigger
> rcu_force_quiescent_state() which can be disruptive to the system.
>
> DEFAULT_MAX_RCU_BLIMIT is 10K, so it is ~20G of THP unmapped on x86.
>
> munmap() of 64G worth of THP should be enough to demonstrate the
> problem.

I mean you're going to hit that from RCU freeing page tables already, which
most architectures already do right?

So if RCU saturation is a problem, that problem already exists, but I've
not heard of that being a problem at all?

So you're going to have to demonstrate why this situation is markedly
different from that. And it's the same scale.

Overall I think freeing 64 GiB of mapped memory all at once will inevitably
be a slow operation, freeing them directly will also be a lengthily process.

And also it seems to me that RCU mishandling heavy load to the point of
causing system instability should a bug filed with RCU no?

Also note pte_free_defer() is already used in retract_page_tables() so a large
collapse could also hit this problem?

I'm not sure I'm convinced there's an issue here.

>
> --
>   Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

--
Cheers, Lorenzo